<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->not at all. many ancient tribes buried their dead with the possesions from their life. i think it is pointless, but not unreasonable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i didnt mean it like that. i meant for that little "story" to be rediculous in the sense that people just didnt bury their friends/loved-ones for no reason. the idea was created from religion, which created the idea of an afterlife.
people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife.
exactly, and since animals dont have funerals, they (by your reasoning) dont think about the afterlife, which leads me to conclude that they dont have one, from which it is not unreasonable to reason that they do not have a soul.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them
Hey, guys, I just realized that we're all just beams of light experiencing ourself subconsiously. There's no such thing as death, life is just a dream, and we're an imagination of ourselfs ( Bill Hicks).
Go ahead, try to disprove it. It's impossible to prove, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
Oh, oh, and our God is actually an alligator. Hey, I can't prove it, BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER.
A funeral is nothing more than putting a body in the ground. It's a tradition, and just because you do it doesn't make you care about the afterlife and get a soul. We bury the dead because we think of it as respectful.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And you say it would be like humans. You give absolutely no reason (religious or not) as to why it would be like this, so i am perfectly right in pointing out that you have absolutely no idea what this hypothetical AI would be like too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said anything of the sort. I asked you "what if?" to prove a point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i can speak elephant actually i went down to Bristol Zoo and they taught me. Elephants have no concept of an afterlife, they told me. I asked them what happens after they die and they didnt know what i was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, another christian who will say anything, even if it is utterly rediculous, to validate his faith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so there you go, there is a non religious reason for differentiating between humans and animals. If you hit the child, you will go to jail, if you hit the dog, you won't.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh sure, it seperates us in that dogs don't have a legal system. Thats hardly something that can't be explained naturally. Hell, I'm sure there are tribes out there in a jungle somewhere that don't have a legal system too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my point exactly. animals dont have funerals (at least, nobody has ever seen them dress up in suits and put the dead animal in a wodden box), so they dont think about the afterlife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because of course, all mourning rituals must be exactly like the christian ones. Elephants are visiting the bones of dead matriarchs, how are you to know that that is not their ritual feeling some connection to their relative who's soul now resides in their version of heaven? Humans visit graves for similar reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how do you know it isn't? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres a spaceship hiding behind that commet and if you kill your self when it gets here it will carry your soul to paradise. Don't look at me like that, how do you know i'm wrong? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a rediculous idea should be dismissed as rediculous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidence: They don't have funerals, and don't think about the afterlife. Conclusion: They have no need for the silly idea of an afterlife that humans dreampt up to give their life purpose.
I pointed out before why the evidence is not nessesarily true, but assuming it is it can still be interpreted differently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think about "the afterlife" as you put it, because I know that there is no such thing - we rot in the ground. In your eyes, does this mean I don't have a "soul " ?
Personally I think that all humans are given "life" by the energy that makes the universe expand, think of it like this. The universe "invests" a small amout of energy into each and every person, we use this energy to live out our lives, gain memories through experences, then we die. I belive this energy is then returned to the universe 10fold or so, thus the universe expands. We are all attached to this chain, wether or not a bit of the life we lose is returned to another form on earth or else where who knows. But the universe is expanding, and something needs to drive it. Now you could argue that "what was makeing the universe grow before there was life?" Beats me. But life on earth may not have been the only life ever. Anyway thats my wacky theroy, enjoy it.
Pardon the spelling and typos, I have to many bandaids on my fingers from working in the yard. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*after reading Boggle/Skulks/Mercior's little AI debate, installs Black & White, patches it, cheats and let's his Evil 100m tall Wolf burn down a village. Beats said Wolf to death, with a rock.*
Well, now that i am calm and alone, I will post my After-Life theory. Part of it is taken from the idea of Aiua's from the Ender series.
Every living creature has a "soul", though not one in the religious sense. It is an overmind, if you will, that watches after the body, and is attached to it. That soul is called an Aiua, sanskrit for Life, because it is the guardian of your bodies life. In each Aiua is the unique identity we attach to each person. It is not attached to the brain, or any other part but rather it flows freely throughout the body. If you want a solid part, let's say it resides in the blood, because it has to go everywhere for there to be life. Now, this Aiua, this Life, it has an exact counterpart somewhere in the world, another aiua that has exact matching "patterns", a "soul" mate. Now if you know and love your "soul" mate, the two aiua's bond together, occasionally leaping. Regardless of distance, sometimes you will feel what your lover/soulmate does. These two aiua's bond and when one of the person's body dies, the aiua will fuse, but the survivor's Aiua will be dominant over the deceased aiua. The person who died will get to watch the world from the eyes of their soulmate, and they will get to feel/breath/live again, though not being the active chooser. The reason they fuse is that when the person dies, their entire life flashes before their eyes, show every scene of happiness, every scene of sadness, everything, until the person moves on. Then they fuse, and the deceased lives on in the aiua of the living partner. Those two fused aiua's will run the circuit until then the living partner dies, at which point both the aiua's jump and run the circuit of the children they had. The fused aiua's won't fuse with the child's Aiua, because it would be murder, but rather they run the path of the brain, helping to guide the child and steer them on what they think is the right path. When the child eventually dies, all three Aiua's jump to the next body, and so on and so on, until you have a million different aiua's helping guide you through life.
Explains why two people who had the exact same upbringing will turn out completely different.
<!--QuoteBegin--Mercior+Oct 19 2003, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mercior @ Oct 19 2003, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow, can't beleive i read that whole arguement between you two <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Boggle, allow me to educate you: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> now this could be fun...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok, Lets say you are drving down a road and in the road are a puppy and a child. You have to hit one of them, you would probably go for the puppy yes?. You are not religious, so according to you, the child is no better than the puppy, so why do you go for the puppy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, this is an absolutely ridiculous question - you hit the child and you'll have killed a member of your own species, you'll have to face seeing their family, and you'll face criminal prosecution. You hit the puppy and theres no consequences. This goes along with darwins theory of evolution - we strive to protect our own species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there we go. there is a non religions fact that humand are different from animals. we are a different species. how different do you want?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my point exactly. animals dont have funerals (at least, nobody has ever seen them dress up in suits and put the dead animal in a wodden box), so they dont think about the afterlife<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? So having funerals is what makes humans think about the afterlife, and stops animals from doing so? I think you'll find its a bit deeper than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Kastro+,--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kastro @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i believe that addresses your question
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I beleive that a huge factor in seperating animals from humans is language. Think of our language as a computer programming language - English is a very vast language with millions of different commands, we can string these commands (words) together to form meaning and result in actions. Because human language is so vast, we have developed the ability to perform very complex actions, and it is also what allows us to remember such vast amounts of information. Now, looking at animals - they communicate through forms of language, but theirs are much more limited than ours - perhaps with 10 - 20 words (depending on species of course). Because of the limits of their language, they are unable to perform anything more complex than defined by the rules of their language, and are unable to remember anything that can not be expressed by them in their language.
So why did huamns develop such a vast language? I'm not entirely sure about this. I think our anatomy helped a huge amount in developing our intelligence, as we have bodies which are capable of performing much more complex actions that a bird or a dolphin can do - so by experimenting with our bodies we could learn new actions, and when we learn new abilitys, we need a command (a word) to describe it - hence human language (and thus intelligence) begins expanding. General human intelligence starts to expand because we can share these new actions with each other.
Why are there still apes and humans? In regard to this question, I will point you towards research carried out on brain waves. There is a particular brainwave which humans posess, but is not seen in animals - an intense pulse of electrical activity informally called the "aha!" wave. This brainwave is seen in humans when you do something like solving a puzzle or having an original idea. It is the formation of new relations between data at a high level - the ability for us create new ideas without learning them. This brainwave will have come into existance from a mutation millions of years ago, and it is a (if not THE) key difference between humans and animals today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so there is another non religious fact - the ability to have original thought (thats what the aha is)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if the AI is like humans, it would also be like animals. i just saved the time typing.
It does still count. Skulkbait was saying that i was wrong in saying it would be like humans, i am saying he doesn't know any better. The pot is calling the kettle black <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope now that you can understand why this statement is so utterly wrong. The perfect AI model will be designed to behave exactly as a human does, not an animal (Thats the whole point of AI). The two things are very different due to brain structure, and the fact that we have our vast language to power us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may be designed to imitate human thought, but will it <i>be</i> human? Will it be frightened of thunderstorms or recognise the beauty in the sunrise? will it be able to appreciate life and care for "other" humans?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry to break the news to you pal, but you're nothing more than a series of electrical impulses being carried over a vast network of nerons linked together in such a way that you appear "intelligent" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it? you, are, after all, just a mass of electrical impulese exactly like a computer, another mass of electrical signals
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Incidentally, I am am a student at Staffrd University studying AI. I firmly beleive that we will have a perfect AI model within 20 years, probably less.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'll come back to you in 20 years then... (or will i be talking to your computer?)
*searches CS arsenal, find 3000 dollars, purchases Riot Shield and Five-seveN, points gun at Mercior, Skulk and Boggle* Stop the threadjacking and get back ontopic about Life & Death, not if an AI would believe in the after life. Move along.
*reaches into Ns arsenal, pulls out HA, welder and akimbo HMG + GL. "what were you saying?"
This is actually quite interesting. besides, it wasnt actually any one of us who jacked this thread, it was Teflon:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know, the day we make artificial intelligence, I'm going to find the first chrisitan and slap him in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So there we go. there is a non religions fact that humand are different from animals. we are a different species. how different do you want?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans are as different to dogs as dogs are to any other animal. Each species is unique, its not a case of humans vs animals. The original thought thing is just a characteristic of humans, but all animals have unique characteristics that other animals don't have too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife i believe that addresses your question<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funerals are a very old religious tradition which have been carried through to modern times through superstiton. It makes sense to have some sort of memorial service to us because we are usually very sad at the time of funerals, the religious side of funerals these days exists because there is no real alternative avaliable, and it is the traditional thing to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It may be designed to imitate human thought, but will it <i>be</i> human? Will it be frightened of thunderstorms or recognise the beauty in the sunrise? will it be able to appreciate life and care for "other" humans?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it will perfectly emulate every aspect of human behaviour and emotion. Humans will have become as clever as your god.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it? you, are, after all, just a mass of electrical impulese exactly like a computer, another mass of electrical signals<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans are driven by a huge number of factors, emotions included. Feeling bad isnt some magical thing to do with a "soul", its a compelx factor of billions of electical signals coming together to release certain hormones and nerochemicals that cause you to feel an emotion. Human emotions formed as a self defence mechanism - at the most basic level you would feel bad for killing your own species, but there are hundreds of other factors based on emotional memories and facts you have learned that decide emotional response.
---
Can you also answer my above post ^^^
In regard to threadjacking - When a perfect AI model is made, it will prove that we are machines and are powered by nothing but electircal impulses - thus proving that there is nothing more to what makes up a human, disproving all religion and ideas of an "afterlife". Of course when this day comes no religions will accept it but I wont even go there...
*watches all the ammo hit his riot shield, and either bounce off (GL) or just be absorbed* silly nublet, Riot shield is indestructible! much like a redeeming onos with Celerity!
boggle, youre taking my words the wrong way still...
look, lemme break this down even more:
people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife.
funerals werent created before the idea of the afterlife. people thought, "hey maybe there is something after this." then since they thought there was something after this, and obviously our body wasnt going anywhere, we must have "souls". so we started to bury our loved ones and make sure their body was disposed of "properly", so that the soul wouldnt be mad and haunt the living. notice how in lots of horror movies they have ancient indian burial grounds, where the bodies were disturbed and then they rose from the dead?
funerals were created AFTER the idea of the afterlife. the idea of a funeral is dependant of the idea of there being an afterlife, not the other way around. stop making it sound like we have funerals because there must be an afterlife. you have it backwards.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that is what we like to call morals. morals are not based on religion, religion was made in part by morals. again, dont get it backwards. here is a quote of myself from another forum: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok you guys are arguing over this like there are multiple answers. one of you is saying the sky is blue, and the other says the sky is green.
ok definition of moral is: of or relating to <span style='color:blue'>principles</span> of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral <span style='color:red'>judgments</span>>
<span style='color:blue'> a comprehensive and fundamental law, </span><span style='color:green'>doctrine</span><span style='color:blue'>, or assumption</span>
<span style='color:red'>the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing</span>
<span style='color:green'> a principle of </span><span style='color:orange'>law</span> <span style='color:green'> established through past decisions</span>
<span style='color:orange'>a rule of construction or procedure</span>
and when we put this all together we get:
<b><u>moral: of or relating to a comprehensive and fundamental rule of procedure established through past decisions of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing></b></u>
so basically when you do something right you compare it to doing something wrong. one makes you feel good(happy), one makes you feel bad(sad). everybody that i know likes being happy more than being sad. and because of our selfishness of wanting to be happy, we dont go around killing people. if we did, we would end up feeling bad because we would compare the results in our heads. and we call this our conscience.
definition of conscience is: a faculty, power, or principle <b>enjoing good acts</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->exactly, and since animals dont have funerals, they (by your reasoning) dont think about the afterlife, which leads me to conclude that they dont have one, from which it is not unreasonable to reason that they do not have a soul.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> just because you dont think about something it doesnt mean its nonexistant.
Nova, i got to "That soul is called an Aiua, sanskrit for Life" and prompty stopped reading your post <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I hope you don't really beleive that <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not exactly that, but something rather close to it. It's buried somewhere under Discussion Forums v1.0, probably like page 1. I had an entire wave theory that I found very good and useful and explained away a lot of things. The aiua thing is just something I've been toying with philosophically since I last read the Ender series.
<!--QuoteBegin--Mercior+Oct 19 2003, 02:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mercior @ Oct 19 2003, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Creating a perfect AI model would prove that "souls" do not exist, and we are nothing more than a complex piece of machinery. The day we make pefect AI, all religion should (theoretically) die out because it disproves the existance of god.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Close, but not quite. What it implies is that either AI programs have souls, or nobody has a soul.
I believe that in fact if we could create an AI program like us, they would not only have a soul, they would be alive (just not in the traditional sense we've all come to know). So yes, in my definition, every intelligent AI program in the Matrix has a soul and is alive.
Functionalists believe this. The only requirement of having a soul is having a very complex connection between abstract parts which allows them to act, well... human. In theory, it doesn't matter whether this complex relationship is in computer circuitry or the human mind. It is there all the same.
Let me ask you guys this.. do humans have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do animals have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do insects have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do plants have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do one-celled organisms have souls?
No, when we make AI it will not have a soul in any sense, it will be a piece of machinery that is designed in the same way as us. It will have just as much of a soul as your computer or your microwave has (or indeed, as you and I have)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Functionalists believe this. The only requirement of having a soul is having a very complex connection between abstract parts which allows them to act, well... human. In theory, it doesn't matter whether this complex relationship is in computer circuitry or the human mind. It is there all the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what exactly do they think a soul is/can do? On the most basic level, what is special about making one series of electical connections - say, the sequence from seeing something and it triggering an emotional response against the series of electircal connections that is letting me type on my keyboard?
If we create AI that thinks human, the first thing it will do is kill us off. Or put us all into stasis, capture the planet, find another planet and strip us of all technology and settle us there. Or at least that's what I think it would do. why?
Humans would be the first enemy to an AI, because we would pose the greatest survival threat. Dogs & Cats would pose no threat as they would not have the capacity to wipe it out but we do. And we know what the AI is capable of.
basically what it comes down to since these arguments will never be settled is that if you believe in an after-life your a hopeful person and will value human-life more because you think it has a purpose beyond this life....if you don't believe in after-life then you are not hopeful and have no purpose but to live your life the way you want to and then your dead...no purpose...basically you came had fun then went away never to be heard of again, never to be cared about again, it doesn't matter because it's just natural selection the weak and old must die off eventually and the cycle continues forever and forever for no purpose but to live and that's it...wow bleak...
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Oct 20 2003, 01:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Oct 20 2003, 01:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we create AI that thinks human, the first thing it will do is kill us off. Or put us all into stasis, capture the planet, find another planet and strip us of all technology and settle us there. Or at least that's what I think it would do. why?
Humans would be the first enemy to an AI, because we would pose the greatest survival threat. Dogs & Cats would pose no threat as they would not have the capacity to wipe it out but we do. And we know what the AI is capable of. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that's crazy. You're assuming an AI program which thinks human will want to wipe off every human on this planet?
What if you found out you were an AI program (you'd think and act human)? Would you suddenly want to kill all humans from the face of the planet? No, of course not. There are just like you. Why do people always seem to think that androids which act human would feel the need to slaughter all of mankind? If we wouldn't, why would androids which supposedly act like us do that?
To answer your question, a soul is what gives life to lifeless things. It's the difference between corpses and living breathing human beings. In computers, it is the difference between a bunch of wires and an AI program which desires to live and not die.
Read the books <i>Destination Void</i> & <i>The Jesus Incident</i>. Ship is an AI, created by humans for the purpose of getting us from our Solar system to another one. But Ship was created by humans, and the first thing he does? He kills a mouse fetus that was given to his control, just to obtain some data. He nearly kills Raja Flattery because Raja threatens his existence. If we construct an AI, regardless of how well we make it, at some point we will become threats to it's existence. The logical course of action? Armageddon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we construct an AI, regardless of how well we make it, at some point we will become threats to it's existence. The logical course of action? Armageddon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The logical course of action? Who says this thing doesn't have any morals if it is indeed 'alive'? It may mearly decide to round us all up and keep us in a big cage somewhere. Or it may decide that negotiations are more to its liking. Since no one has ever created AI that is in any way remotely considered to be 'alive' its fairly useless to speculate on such things. Anyway, I'd like to thank boggle for considing to me by default for not answering my post and I'm gonna make a whole new thread for this AI foolishness, though it will be a slightly different subject.
<!--QuoteBegin--Mercior+Oct 19 2003, 07:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mercior @ Oct 19 2003, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think about "the afterlife" as you put it, because I know that there is no such thing - we rot in the ground. In your eyes, does this mean I don't have a "soul " ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> no, in my eyes you are a waste of space, a strange being who somehow finds a reason to act morally when he knows he will not be held accountable at the end of it. "Yay, look at me, im gonna get a machine gun and go an slaughter 30 innocent school kids then kill myself because i will get away with it" How fair is that?
---
The mere fact that we think about the afterlife means that deep down insdie, we feel there is something more. Call it a comfort blanket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me ask you guys this.. do humans have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do animals have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do insects have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do plants have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do one-celled organisms have souls? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
humans: yes. animals: no. insects: no. plants: no. single celled organisms: no
---
Would you kill another bloke if he fancied your gf/wife?
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 20 2003, 11:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 20 2003, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> no, in my eyes you are a waste of space, a strange being who somehow finds a reason to act morally when he knows he will not be held accountable at the end of it. "Yay, look at me, im gonna get a machine gun and go an slaughter 30 innocent school kids then kill myself because i will get away with it" How fair is that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is why we have laws in modern society, nobody expects people to stick to moral religious beleifs. Just because I don't beleive there is a being constantly judging my every action doesn't mean that I can't behave in a "moral" way - it is my choice, and the laws of society give us a general set of guidelines on how to behave.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The mere fact that we think about the afterlife means that deep down insdie, we feel there is something more. Call it a comfort blanket.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>You</b> think about an afterlife because you are naturally scared of death and you've obviously been brought up with fairy tales that you don't *really* die, your "soul" will fly to a magical happy place in the clouds with faries and pixies and angels. Religion preys on the natural insecuritys of humans and then exploits it with false hope. We're all scared of dying Boggle, but you have to face reality, get over it and don't waste your life worring about it (or worrying about what some "god" thinks of you). Open your eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why we have laws in modern society<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how are those laws decided? what do the people who make them base thier morals on?
i agree with boggle, I think you can trace back these modern laws from the moral laws of the bible (i.e. alot of ten commandment placks in courtrooms) I don't think anyone can deny that the moral laws of the bible bring more peace then anything that we can come up with. personally, there is pretty much no way that you couldn't link modern law to biblical law.
Given that fact that all religion is a scam that started thousands of years ago as a method to control society it makes sense that they layed down laws - at the time there was little scientific knowledge and the idea that there was a god who created everything was the most reasonable explanation to people. At this time, the church *was* the government and they layed down some basic laws (Laws that essentially say "dont do somethign that you wouldnt want done to yourself") which eventually crafted society into what it is today, at the time people would obey them for fear of being struck down by gods wraith - these days with (most) people are a bit more intelligent than that and we have to threaten with real physical punishment.
So to answer your question, the most basic modern laws which I'm sure you think have some deep religous meaning (Thou shalt not kill etc) were made all those years ago to control society, they were presented as "from god" because that got peoples attention at the time and made the majority of people obey them with no questions. They were decided using common sense - if you can think of something that you wouldnt want to have done to yourself - make it illegal. That is the basis for all laws.
I can see that I'm not going to convince you that there is no god boggle, but have a read back over your posts. I've disproved every point you have to make and you've slowly been pushed back to making desperate links such as this religion->law one. To make this very clear to you: <b>The only relationship between religion and law is that it was the church who used to run the country and thus their laws were presented as "from god" in order to gain instant and unquestioned support of them.</b>
So the only reason to do things is the fact that you're going to be held responsible for them once you die? Can't you accept the fact that people live their lives however they want because of the chemicals in their brains, and not their soul?
Comments
i didnt mean it like that. i meant for that little "story" to be rediculous in the sense that people just didnt bury their friends/loved-ones for no reason. the idea was created from religion, which created the idea of an afterlife.
people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them
Hey, guys, I just realized that we're all just beams of light experiencing ourself subconsiously. There's no such thing as death, life is just a dream, and we're an imagination of ourselfs ( Bill Hicks).
Go ahead, try to disprove it. It's impossible to prove, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
Oh, oh, and our God is actually an alligator. Hey, I can't prove it, BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER.
A funeral is nothing more than putting a body in the ground. It's a tradition, and just because you do it doesn't make you care about the afterlife and get a soul. We bury the dead because we think of it as respectful.
I never said anything of the sort. I asked you "what if?" to prove a point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i can speak elephant actually i went down to Bristol Zoo and they taught me. Elephants have no concept of an afterlife, they told me. I asked them what happens after they die and they didnt know what i was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, another christian who will say anything, even if it is utterly rediculous, to validate his faith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so there you go, there is a non religious reason for differentiating between humans and animals. If you hit the child, you will go to jail, if you hit the dog, you won't.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh sure, it seperates us in that dogs don't have a legal system. Thats hardly something that can't be explained naturally. Hell, I'm sure there are tribes out there in a jungle somewhere that don't have a legal system too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my point exactly. animals dont have funerals (at least, nobody has ever seen them dress up in suits and put the dead animal in a wodden box), so they dont think about the afterlife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because of course, all mourning rituals must be exactly like the christian ones. Elephants are visiting the bones of dead matriarchs, how are you to know that that is not their ritual feeling some connection to their relative who's soul now resides in their version of heaven? Humans visit graves for similar reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how do you know it isn't? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres a spaceship hiding behind that commet and if you kill your self when it gets here it will carry your soul to paradise. Don't look at me like that, how do you know i'm wrong? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a rediculous idea should be dismissed as rediculous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidence: They don't have funerals, and don't think about the afterlife.
Conclusion: They have no need for the silly idea of an afterlife that humans dreampt up to give their life purpose.
I pointed out before why the evidence is not nessesarily true, but assuming it is it can still be interpreted differently.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think about "the afterlife" as you put it, because I know that there is no such thing - we rot in the ground. In your eyes, does this mean I don't have a "soul " ?
Pardon the spelling and typos, I have to many bandaids on my fingers from working in the yard. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, now that i am calm and alone, I will post my After-Life theory. Part of it is taken from the idea of Aiua's from the Ender series.
Every living creature has a "soul", though not one in the religious sense. It is an overmind, if you will, that watches after the body, and is attached to it. That soul is called an Aiua, sanskrit for Life, because it is the guardian of your bodies life. In each Aiua is the unique identity we attach to each person. It is not attached to the brain, or any other part but rather it flows freely throughout the body. If you want a solid part, let's say it resides in the blood, because it has to go everywhere for there to be life. Now, this Aiua, this Life, it has an exact counterpart somewhere in the world, another aiua that has exact matching "patterns", a "soul" mate. Now if you know and love your "soul" mate, the two aiua's bond together, occasionally leaping. Regardless of distance, sometimes you will feel what your lover/soulmate does. These two aiua's bond and when one of the person's body dies, the aiua will fuse, but the survivor's Aiua will be dominant over the deceased aiua. The person who died will get to watch the world from the eyes of their soulmate, and they will get to feel/breath/live again, though not being the active chooser. The reason they fuse is that when the person dies, their entire life flashes before their eyes, show every scene of happiness, every scene of sadness, everything, until the person moves on. Then they fuse, and the deceased lives on in the aiua of the living partner. Those two fused aiua's will run the circuit until then the living partner dies, at which point both the aiua's jump and run the circuit of the children they had. The fused aiua's won't fuse with the child's Aiua, because it would be murder, but rather they run the path of the brain, helping to guide the child and steer them on what they think is the right path. When the child eventually dies, all three Aiua's jump to the next body, and so on and so on, until you have a million different aiua's helping guide you through life.
Explains why two people who had the exact same upbringing will turn out completely different.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
now this could be fun...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok, Lets say you are drving down a road and in the road are a puppy and a child. You have to hit one of them, you would probably go for the puppy yes?. You are not religious, so according to you, the child is no better than the puppy, so why do you go for the puppy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, this is an absolutely ridiculous question - you hit the child and you'll have killed a member of your own species, you'll have to face seeing their family, and you'll face criminal prosecution. You hit the puppy and theres no consequences. This goes along with darwins theory of evolution - we strive to protect our own species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there we go. there is a non religions fact that humand are different from animals. we are a different species. how different do you want?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my point exactly. animals dont have funerals (at least, nobody has ever seen them dress up in suits and put the dead animal in a wodden box), so they dont think about the afterlife<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? So having funerals is what makes humans think about the afterlife, and stops animals from doing so? I think you'll find its a bit deeper than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Kastro+,--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kastro @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i believe that addresses your question
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I beleive that a huge factor in seperating animals from humans is language. Think of our language as a computer programming language - English is a very vast language with millions of different commands, we can string these commands (words) together to form meaning and result in actions. Because human language is so vast, we have developed the ability to perform very complex actions, and it is also what allows us to remember such vast amounts of information. Now, looking at animals - they communicate through forms of language, but theirs are much more limited than ours - perhaps with 10 - 20 words (depending on species of course). Because of the limits of their language, they are unable to perform anything more complex than defined by the rules of their language, and are unable to remember anything that can not be expressed by them in their language.
So why did huamns develop such a vast language? I'm not entirely sure about this. I think our anatomy helped a huge amount in developing our intelligence, as we have bodies which are capable of performing much more complex actions that a bird or a dolphin can do - so by experimenting with our bodies we could learn new actions, and when we learn new abilitys, we need a command (a word) to describe it - hence human language (and thus intelligence) begins expanding. General human intelligence starts to expand because we can share these new actions with each other.
Why are there still apes and humans? In regard to this question, I will point you towards research carried out on brain waves. There is a particular brainwave which humans posess, but is not seen in animals - an intense pulse of electrical activity informally called the "aha!" wave. This brainwave is seen in humans when you do something like solving a puzzle or having an original idea. It is the formation of new relations between data at a high level - the ability for us create new ideas without learning them. This brainwave will have come into existance from a mutation millions of years ago, and it is a (if not THE) key difference between humans and animals today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so there is another non religious fact - the ability to have original thought (thats what the aha is)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
if the AI is like humans, it would also be like animals. i just saved the time typing.
It does still count. Skulkbait was saying that i was wrong in saying it would be like humans, i am saying he doesn't know any better. The pot is calling the kettle black
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope now that you can understand why this statement is so utterly wrong. The perfect AI model will be designed to behave exactly as a human does, not an animal (Thats the whole point of AI). The two things are very different due to brain structure, and the fact that we have our vast language to power us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may be designed to imitate human thought, but will it <i>be</i> human? Will it be frightened of thunderstorms or recognise the beauty in the sunrise? will it be able to appreciate life and care for "other" humans?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry to break the news to you pal, but you're nothing more than a series of electrical impulses being carried over a vast network of nerons linked together in such a way that you appear "intelligent" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it? you, are, after all, just a mass of electrical impulese exactly like a computer, another mass of electrical signals
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Incidentally, I am am a student at Staffrd University studying AI. I firmly beleive that we will have a perfect AI model within 20 years, probably less.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'll come back to you in 20 years then... (or will i be talking to your computer?)
This is actually quite interesting. besides, it wasnt actually any one of us who jacked this thread, it was Teflon:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know, the day we make artificial intelligence, I'm going to find the first chrisitan and slap him in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see? blame him
Humans are as different to dogs as dogs are to any other animal. Each species is unique, its not a case of humans vs animals. The original thought thing is just a characteristic of humans, but all animals have unique characteristics that other animals don't have too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife
i believe that addresses your question<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funerals are a very old religious tradition which have been carried through to modern times through superstiton. It makes sense to have some sort of memorial service to us because we are usually very sad at the time of funerals, the religious side of funerals these days exists because there is no real alternative avaliable, and it is the traditional thing to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It may be designed to imitate human thought, but will it <i>be</i> human? Will it be frightened of thunderstorms or recognise the beauty in the sunrise? will it be able to appreciate life and care for "other" humans?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it will perfectly emulate every aspect of human behaviour and emotion. Humans will have become as clever as your god.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it? you, are, after all, just a mass of electrical impulese exactly like a computer, another mass of electrical signals<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans are driven by a huge number of factors, emotions included. Feeling bad isnt some magical thing to do with a "soul", its a compelx factor of billions of electical signals coming together to release certain hormones and nerochemicals that cause you to feel an emotion. Human emotions formed as a self defence mechanism - at the most basic level you would feel bad for killing your own species, but there are hundreds of other factors based on emotional memories and facts you have learned that decide emotional response.
---
Can you also answer my above post ^^^
In regard to threadjacking - When a perfect AI model is made, it will prove that we are machines and are powered by nothing but electircal impulses - thus proving that there is nothing more to what makes up a human, disproving all religion and ideas of an "afterlife". Of course when this day comes no religions will accept it but I wont even go there...
look, lemme break this down even more:
people dont think about the afterlife because we have funerals, we have funerals because we think about the afterlife.
funerals werent created before the idea of the afterlife. people thought, "hey maybe there is something after this." then since they thought there was something after this, and obviously our body wasnt going anywhere, we must have "souls". so we started to bury our loved ones and make sure their body was disposed of "properly", so that the soul wouldnt be mad and haunt the living. notice how in lots of horror movies they have ancient indian burial grounds, where the bodies were disturbed and then they rose from the dead?
funerals were created AFTER the idea of the afterlife. the idea of a funeral is dependant of the idea of there being an afterlife, not the other way around. stop making it sound like we have funerals because there must be an afterlife. you have it backwards.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, what then stops me from killing you and not feeling bad about it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is what we like to call morals. morals are not based on religion, religion was made in part by morals. again, dont get it backwards.
here is a quote of myself from another forum:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok you guys are arguing over this like there are multiple answers. one of you is saying the sky is blue, and the other says the sky is green.
ok definition of moral is: of or relating to <span style='color:blue'>principles</span> of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral <span style='color:red'>judgments</span>>
<span style='color:blue'> a comprehensive and fundamental law, </span><span style='color:green'>doctrine</span><span style='color:blue'>, or assumption</span>
<span style='color:red'>the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing</span>
<span style='color:green'> a principle of </span><span style='color:orange'>law</span> <span style='color:green'> established through past decisions</span>
<span style='color:orange'>a rule of construction or procedure</span>
and when we put this all together we get:
<b><u>moral: of or relating to a comprehensive and fundamental rule of procedure established through past decisions of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing></b></u>
so basically when you do something right you compare it to doing something wrong. one makes you feel good(happy), one makes you feel bad(sad). everybody that i know likes being happy more than being sad. and because of our selfishness of wanting to be happy, we dont go around killing people. if we did, we would end up feeling bad because we would compare the results in our heads. and we call this our conscience.
definition of conscience is: a faculty, power, or principle <b>enjoing good acts</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->exactly, and since animals dont have funerals, they (by your reasoning) dont think about the afterlife, which leads me to conclude that they dont have one, from which it is not unreasonable to reason that they do not have a soul.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
just because you dont think about something it doesnt mean its nonexistant.
Close, but not quite. What it implies is that either AI programs have souls, or nobody has a soul.
I believe that in fact if we could create an AI program like us, they would not only have a soul, they would be alive (just not in the traditional sense we've all come to know). So yes, in my definition, every intelligent AI program in the Matrix has a soul and is alive.
Functionalists believe this. The only requirement of having a soul is having a very complex connection between abstract parts which allows them to act, well... human. In theory, it doesn't matter whether this complex relationship is in computer circuitry or the human mind. It is there all the same.
Let me ask you guys this.. do humans have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do animals have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do insects have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do plants have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do one-celled organisms have souls?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Functionalists believe this. The only requirement of having a soul is having a very complex connection between abstract parts which allows them to act, well... human. In theory, it doesn't matter whether this complex relationship is in computer circuitry or the human mind. It is there all the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what exactly do they think a soul is/can do? On the most basic level, what is special about making one series of electical connections - say, the sequence from seeing something and it triggering an emotional response against the series of electircal connections that is letting me type on my keyboard?
Humans would be the first enemy to an AI, because we would pose the greatest survival threat. Dogs & Cats would pose no threat as they would not have the capacity to wipe it out but we do. And we know what the AI is capable of.
Humans would be the first enemy to an AI, because we would pose the greatest survival threat. Dogs & Cats would pose no threat as they would not have the capacity to wipe it out but we do. And we know what the AI is capable of. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that's crazy. You're assuming an AI program which thinks human will want to wipe off every human on this planet?
What if you found out you were an AI program (you'd think and act human)? Would you suddenly want to kill all humans from the face of the planet? No, of course not. There are just like you. Why do people always seem to think that androids which act human would feel the need to slaughter all of mankind? If we wouldn't, why would androids which supposedly act like us do that?
To answer your question, a soul is what gives life to lifeless things. It's the difference between corpses and living breathing human beings. In computers, it is the difference between a bunch of wires and an AI program which desires to live and not die.
The logical course of action? Who says this thing doesn't have any morals if it is indeed 'alive'? It may mearly decide to round us all up and keep us in a big cage somewhere. Or it may decide that negotiations are more to its liking. Since no one has ever created AI that is in any way remotely considered to be 'alive' its fairly useless to speculate on such things. Anyway, I'd like to thank boggle for considing to me by default for not answering my post and I'm gonna make a whole new thread for this AI foolishness, though it will be a slightly different subject.
They are different from humans because they dont think about the afterlife.
Evidence: they dont have funerals
Conclusion: they dont have a soul because the afterlife has no meaning to them
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think about "the afterlife" as you put it, because I know that there is no such thing - we rot in the ground. In your eyes, does this mean I don't have a "soul " ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, in my eyes you are a waste of space, a strange being who somehow finds a reason to act morally when he knows he will not be held accountable at the end of it. "Yay, look at me, im gonna get a machine gun and go an slaughter 30 innocent school kids then kill myself because i will get away with it" How fair is that?
---
The mere fact that we think about the afterlife means that deep down insdie, we feel there is something more. Call it a comfort blanket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me ask you guys this.. do humans have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do animals have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do insects have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do plants have souls? Yes or no? If yes, do one-celled organisms have souls? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
humans: yes. animals: no. insects: no. plants: no. single celled organisms: no
---
Would you kill another bloke if he fancied your gf/wife?
That is why we have laws in modern society, nobody expects people to stick to moral religious beleifs. Just because I don't beleive there is a being constantly judging my every action doesn't mean that I can't behave in a "moral" way - it is my choice, and the laws of society give us a general set of guidelines on how to behave.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The mere fact that we think about the afterlife means that deep down insdie, we feel there is something more. Call it a comfort blanket.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>You</b> think about an afterlife because you are naturally scared of death and you've obviously been brought up with fairy tales that you don't *really* die, your "soul" will fly to a magical happy place in the clouds with faries and pixies and angels. Religion preys on the natural insecuritys of humans and then exploits it with false hope. We're all scared of dying Boggle, but you have to face reality, get over it and don't waste your life worring about it (or worrying about what some "god" thinks of you). Open your eyes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why we have laws in modern society<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how are those laws decided? what do the people who make them base thier morals on?
So to answer your question, the most basic modern laws which I'm sure you think have some deep religous meaning (Thou shalt not kill etc) were made all those years ago to control society, they were presented as "from god" because that got peoples attention at the time and made the majority of people obey them with no questions. They were decided using common sense - if you can think of something that you wouldnt want to have done to yourself - make it illegal. That is the basis for all laws.
I can see that I'm not going to convince you that there is no god boggle, but have a read back over your posts. I've disproved every point you have to make and you've slowly been pushed back to making desperate links such as this religion->law one. To make this very clear to you: <b>The only relationship between religion and law is that it was the church who used to run the country and thus their laws were presented as "from god" in order to gain instant and unquestioned support of them.</b>
i dont see how you have proved me wrong in everything, you have only given your side of the argument